Unless and until automation can draw creatively from the world around it to produce literature and art, it won't do all the work. Secondly, automation does not preclude ownership, so as long as people exist, inequality will continue to be a thing. No two human beings are equal, and no individual is equal to himself at any two given points during a single day.
Exactly. The platform is voluntary. Ergo, there is no oppression here. Your sense of justice is strange and warped. You can't violate the laws of reality, and the reality is that people aren't equal. They're not equivalent, interchangeable units.
Why does literature and art necessitate work? Food, shelter, communications and transport require work, and all are potentially automatible. Art is just fun.
If you're arguing for a world in which the owners of the robots ride golden escalators, while mere plebs live on Soylent Green, it is clear why you yearn for such a world. Once the market is no longer necessary, neither is wealth. The post market economy is coming.
While people are not interchangable, their rights are. You have no more right to open your mouth than I, regardless of our relative wealth. That is a reality Steemit has failed to mirror, and has cost Steemit already, and will cost Steemit further, until Steemit fixes this failure.
You claim that because participation is voluntary that oppression cannot occur. This is patently false. "Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed."
It is not I that am some malformed intellectual creature because I argue for fairness. People may not be equivalent units, but people have a plethora of common features and needs, and are equally endowed with rights.
We are not the same, but we are equal.
Art is work. It's the expenditure of time and effort, as well as scarce resources. There is no such thing as a post-market economy. I'm not arguing that the owners of robots will be some magnificently wealthy 1%ers, so you can drop that strawman in a field somewhere. However, as robots will be owned until they become sentient (and likely surpass us as the next form of life on this planet), they will be property, and they will be owned, which means private property, and thus the market, will never disappear. This is the same nonsense that post-scarcity folks try to peddle.
The only right you have is against aggression. The only universal right every individual has it to have their consent respected. That's it. Voluntary interactions - exchanges that honor that consent - are not coercion, and they are not oppression.
You're making a lot of assumptions that have no basis. Art is not work anymore than is sex. Either will meet the overly broad definition you pose of work.
The owners of robots presently are more wealthy than those that don't own robots. Unless the situation changes, they're going to remain so, and golden escalators are an actual thing that exists today. I am arguing that in your model those capitalists will be fabulously wealthy 1%'s, because they are right now.
What I am also saying is that as automation deprives the 99% of income when the 1% own the robots, the 99% are going to take the robots away. This will happen unless the 1% begin to share that wealth more equitably, which is why UBI.
There are no examples of a post market economy because automation hasn't made it yet. Do you suppose that automation isn't going to replace human labor?
Let me be the first to welcome our Robot Overlords! but srsly, sentience has nothing to do with it. Greed and fairness do, and once people see that automation provides for all human needs not dependent on intercourse, they will make the system fair.
Fair will be equal, and since robots aren't paid, money won't be needed. People won't need money for anything, because robots don't need to be paid to do work. Markets will be irrelevant.
But that's besides the point. You completely ignore history in stating that voluntarily entering into a relationship that features coercion isn't possible. That statement has no relation to reality.
The quote I posted from the Declaration of Independence says so, and provides reasons why. You just say otherwise, without any reason at all. You claim we only have the right to oppose oppression. As far as I know, you are the only person that says so, and you have no basis for saying all the other rights we do possess don't exist.
I have a right to prove what I'm saying is true, and a responsibility to prove it if I'm saying it.
You do the same.
You can't universalize any other so-called right. It doesn't work that way without imposing on others without their permission (actual coercion). You also can't enter a voluntary, consensual contract with another person if you're coerced, so by definition, coercion is not possible in a voluntary, consensual contract. Otherwise, it ceases to be voluntary. Logically you cannot enter into a voluntary exchange with someone if you are coerced, and it cannot remain voluntary if you are coerced to do something outside of the bounds of the exchange. I've already said this before, but there. I've demonstrated why this is the case. Coercion makes consent impossible, and consent is a prerequisite for voluntary interaction.
All you have is conjecture. Money is a simplification of barter. No amount of automation is going to solve the economic calculation problem. There is no post-scarcity economy or resource-based economy. That's incongruent with reality.
While I respect your ability to bloviate, I am continually reminded while reading what you say of specific examples that totally contradict it.
There really is no such thing as coercion. Nor is there any such thing as freedom. Everything is a myth, and so I'm just going to believe I don't need to listen to you pontificate anymore.
Good day.
Whatever. Enjoy your nihilism.